ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Faces Suit in Nova Scotia Over Scratch-Offs-------------------------------------------------------------Atlantic Lottery Corp. is facing a purported class-action suitin Nova Scotia that accuses it of selling scratch-off lotterytickets after the top prizes have been won, The Chronicle-Heraldreports.

The lawsuit was filed by Laura Trowell on behalf of anyone whopurchased or was given a scratch ticket in Nova Scotia, NewBrunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland/Labrador sinceNov. 1, 2001, according to The Chronicle-Herald.

In addition to stopping the practice of selling tickets afterthe big prize has already been won, the suit seeks a return ofmoney to people who bought the tickets, reports The Chronicle-Herald.

CHINA SHENGHUO: Faces Suit by Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll--------------------------------------------------------------Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., on Sept. 22, 2008,announced that it filed a class-action lawsuit against ChinaShenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on behalf of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &Toll's client and on behalf of other similarly situatedpurchasers of China Shenghuo common stock during the periodbetween July 23, 2007 through Aug. 20, 2008, inclusive.

China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. is primarilyengaged in the research, development, production and marketingof pharmaceutical, nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.The company's core offering, Xuesaitong Soft Capsules, is apharmaceutical product developed to treat the symptoms ofcardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. This drug isdesigned to invigorate the circulation of blood and improvemicrocirculation. Nearly all of Shenghuo's products are derivedfrom the medicinal herb Panax notoginseng, also known as Sanqi,Sanchi or Tienchi. Shenghuo's research and development effortsfocus on pharmaceutical products and over-the-counter (OTC)products that are based on traditional Chinese medicines.

COMPASS GROUP: Faces $200M Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Pa.---------------------------------------------------------------Compass Group USA, Inc. is facing a $200 million class-actionlawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania, alleging systemic racial discrimination againstblack workers, Sean Farrell of The Independent reports.

The suit, which was brought by 11 current and former employeesin Compass's catering operation at Philadelphia's ComcastCenter, is accusing the company of allowing managers at itsbusiness in Philadelphia to racially abuse, discriminate againstand harass African-American employees.

The world's biggest catering company is accused of failing tostop its black employees at the Comcast Center, Phildelphia'stallest building, from being called names such as "nigger","monkey," and "gorilla," according to The Independent.

Among other claims, it is alleged that black staff were forcedto eat lunch in the locker room and to clean up after whiteworkers.

The Independent reported that at the center of the complaints isDerek Vogelman, Compass' executive chef at the landmark tower,which opened in June. It is alleged that Mr. Vogelman routinelyused racist language towards black employees, includingreferring to them as "Chim-Chim," the name of a pet chimpanzeein the film Speed Racer.

Mr. Vogelman is also accused of referring to fast-working blackemployees as "Carl Lewis," the name of the former black Olympicsprint champion. The plaintiffs claim Mr. Vogelman carried onusing racist language when asked to stop and that his managersrefused to take action to change his behavior.

The lawsuit also alleges that Compass's Flik division, which hasthe Comcast Center contract, only allows white employees to workin front of guests at private catering functions at the tower,with black staff consigned to the kitchen or excluded entirely,reports The Independent.

Compass allegedly brought in white employees from another of itssubsidiaries to work front of house at events at the ComcastCenter to avoid African-Americans serving guests directly.

According to The Independent, the plaintiffs claim they andother black employees complained to Compass's management andhuman resources about the alleged discrimination. They allegethat the company's investigations were "inadequate andsuperficial" and that Compass failed to put in place proceduresto detect and correct discriminatory practices.

ENTERPRISE GP: ETP's Bid to Junk Consolidated Complaint Pending----------------------------------------------------------------The motion to dismiss the second consolidated complaint filedagainst Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.'s subsidiary, EnergyTransfer Partners, L.P., and certain affiliates remains pendingin the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

A consolidated class action complaint has been filed against ETPand certain affiliates in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of Texas.

This action alleges that ETP engaged in intentional and unlawfulmanipulation of the price of natural gas futures and optionscontracts on the NYMEX in violation of the Commodity ExchangeAct (CEA).

It is further alleged that during the class period December 2003to December 2005, ETP had the market power to manipulate indexprices, and that ETP used this market power to artificiallydepress the index prices at major natural gas trading hubs,including the Houston Ship Channel, in order to benefit itsnatural gas physical and financial trading positions andintentionally submitted price and volume trade information totrade publications.

This complaint also alleges that ETP also violated the CEAbecause ETP knowingly aided and abetted violations of the CEA.

This action alleges that the unlawful depression of index pricesby ETP manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas futures andoptions contracts to artificial levels during the periodstipulated in the complaint, causing unspecified damages to theplaintiff and all other members of the putative class whopurchased and/or sold natural gas futures and options contractson the NYMEX during the period.

According to Enterprise GP's Nov. 14 2008 Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended Sept. 30, 2008, this class action complaint consolidatedtwo class actions, which were pending against ETP. Following theconsolidation order, the plaintiffs who had filed these twoearlier class actions filed a consolidated complaint. They haverequested certification of their suit as a class action,unspecified damages, court costs and other appropriate relief.

In January 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss this suit on thegrounds of failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim.

In March 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated classaction complaint. In response to this new pleading, ETP filed amotion to dismiss this second consolidated complaint in May2008.

In June 2008, the plaintiffs filed a response opposing ETP'smotion to dismiss. ETP filed a reply in support of its motion inJuly 2008.

ENTERPRISE GP: ETP's Motion to Dismiss Complaint in Tex. Pending----------------------------------------------------------------Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.'s motion to dismiss the classaction complaint filed against ETP in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of Texas in March 2008, remainspending.

ETP is an Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. subsidiary.

According to the company's November 2008 Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended Sept. 30, 2008, this action alleges that ETP engaged inunlawful restraint of trade and intentional monopolization andattempted monopolization of the market for fixed-price naturalgas baseload transactions at the Houston Ship Channel fromDecember 2003 through December 2005 in violation of federalantitrust law.

The complaint further alleges that during this period ETPexerted monopolistic power to suppress the price of thesetransactions to non-competitive levels in order to benefit fromits own physical natural gas positions.

The plaintiff has, individually and on behalf of all othersimilarly situated sellers of physical natural gas, requestedcertification of its suit as a class action and seeksunspecified treble damages, court costs and other appropriaterelief.

In May 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. InJuly 2008, the plaintiffs filed a response opposing ETP's motionto dismiss. ETP filed a reply in support of its motion in August2008.

ENTERPRISE GP: TEPPCO Defends "Brinckerhoff" Amended Complaint--------------------------------------------------------------Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.'s subsidiary, TEPPCO Partners, L.P.,continues to defend the amended complaint in PeterBrinckerhoff's putative class action in the Court of Chancery ofNew Castle County in the State of Delaware, according to thecompany's Nov. 14 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In September 2006, Mr. Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder ofTEPPCO, filed a complaint in Delaware, in his individualcapacity, as a putative class action on behalf of otherunitholders of TEPPCO, and derivatively on behalf of TEPPCO,concerning, among other things, certain transactions involvingTEPPCO and Enterprise Products Partners or its affiliates.

In July 2007, Mr. Brinkerhoff filed an amended complaint. Theamended complaint names as defendants (i) TEPPCO, certain of itscurrent and former directors, and certain of its affiliates;(ii) Enterprise Products Partners and certain of its affiliates;(iii) EPCO; and (iv) Dan L. Duncan.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that thedefendants caused TEPPCO to enter into certain transactions thatwere unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise unfairly favored EnterpriseProducts Partners or its affiliates over TEPPCO.

These transactions are alleged to include:

-- the joint venture to further expand the Jonah system entered into by TEPPCO and Enterprise Products Partners in August 2006;

-- the sale by TEPPCO of its Pioneer natural gas processing plant to Enterprise Products Partners in March 2006; and

-- certain amendments to TEPPCO's partnership agreement, including a reduction in the maximum tier of TEPPCO's IDRs in exchange for TEPPCO common units.

The amended complaint seeks:

-- rescission of the amendments to TEPPCO's partnership agreement;

-- damages for profits and special benefits allegedly obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged wrongdoings in the amended complaint; and

-- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees and expenses of his attorneys and experts.

FCSTONE GROUP: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over Failure to Disclose----------------------------------------------------------------A purported class-action lawsuit filed against FCStone Group,Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District ofMissouri is in its early stages, according to the company's Nov.14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

The company and certain of its officers have been named asdefendants in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for theWestern District of Missouri on July 15, 2008.

The action, which purports to be brought as a class action onbehalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock between Nov. 15,2007 and July 9, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under §§10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedfalse statements and failure to disclose adverse facts relatingto an interest rate hedge and the company's bad debt reserve.

HORTI-PAK INC: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over 2002 Fire-----------------------------------------------------------Horti-Pak, Inc., site of a three-day fire in Kingsville in 2002,settled a class-action suit leveled against it by an organicfarmer, greenhouse operator and residents in an area evacuatedduring the blaze, Sarah Sacheli of the The Windsor Star reports.

The CDN800,000 settlement, approved Nov. 27, 2008 by SuperiorCourt Justice John Brockenshire, outlines who can make claims,specifying the streets evacuated during the fire, according toThe Windsor Star.

Case Background

According to the July 9, 2007 edition og the Class ActionReporter, Horti-Pak faces an $80 million class action as aresult of the plastics factory fire, which occurred inKingsville, Ontario, on June 20, 2002. The suit also names asdefendants 1099029 Ontario Limited

The plaintiffs, Jim Ludwig, Alison Causton, Sere Farms, AugustKeller and Ilse I. Keller launched the suit on behalf of allpersons, other than the defendants and their employees, whoowned property or owned or occupied lands and premises withinthe Town of Kingsville on June 20, 2002.

In the late evening of June 20, 2002, a fire occurred at 106Wigle Avenue in Kingsville where the Company operated anindustrial plastic manufacturing business from premises owned by1099029 Ontario Limited. For the next several days, smokeemanated from the fire and spewed combustion-produced chemicalsand other material over the Town of Kingsville. Residents inthe immediate area of the fire were evacuated from theirresidences in the early morning hours of June 21st and a secondtime on June 22nd along with additional residents who were moreremoved from the site of the fire.

The suit alleges that the fire and the consequent wrongfulrelease of smoke vapours and toxins into the air, water, soil,vegetation and lands and premises in the Town of Kingsvilleconstituted both a private and public nuisance for which thedefendants are responsible. The suit further alleges that thefire and the consequent damages in the Town of Kingsville werecaused by the negligence of the defendants.

"Fires fueled by plastics, rubber and polymerized materialsalways present an unknown toxic threat. Residents may not knowthat there are likely over 200 combustion-produced chemicalspossible from this fire," said Harvey T. Strosberg, classcounsel.

"We know that the provincial environment ministry is testing forthe presence of chemical classes. We know already that threecertain carcinogens - styrene and vinyl chloride monomers plusthe chemical class known as PAHs - were present in someconcentration. What we don't know is whether the ministry'stesting addresses the actual biological damage and hazardassessment data available from bioassay information," added Mr.Strosberg.

Mr. Strosberg's legal team is consulting with experts to attemptto ensure that testing is being done to understand the actualthreat from the organic chemicals produced in the fire."However, regardless of the results of the testing, there is nodisputing that residents' lives have been disrupted and theirproperty affected as a result of the fire, redress for which issought in this action," added Mr. Strosberg.

The suit is a method for persons with common issues to join in asingle court proceeding rather than each bringing an individuallawsuit.

Steve Korris of The Madison County Record reported that the suitwas filed in 2003 by Paul Wratchford and Ladonna Wratchford, whocalculated their damage at $79.28. It alleged unjust enrichmentand breach of contract, and they proposed to certify a class ofborrowers in Illinois and other states for loans since 1993.

Household Financial didn't answer, and the Wratchfords moved fordefault judgment. Circuit Judge Philip Kardis granted themotion in 2003, and in 2004 he certified a class and enteredsummary judgment in its favor. Judge Kardis ruled that classmembers would calculate damage the way the Wratchfords did.

Finally, Household Financial appeared, and moved to vacatejudgment. It claimed it never received a summons or a copy ofthe complaint. However, Judge Kardis retired in 2005, withoutruling on the motion to vacate, according to The Madison CountyRecord.

Circuit Judge Don Weber took the case, and in 2006 theplaintiffs' attorneys moved for substitution. The case was thenreassigned to Judge Lola Maddox, but retired without holding ahearing or taking any other action on the case.

Since then the case has stagnated until recently when Mark Brownof The Lakin Law Firm, which represented the Wratchfords, servedinterrogatories and document requests on Household FinancialServices on Nov. 14, 2008, reports The Madison County Record.

Mr. Brown filed a certificate of service for his informationrequests, but he did not file the requests in the court record.

He identified Brad Lakin, Paul Marks of the Lakin firm, TimothyCampbell of Godfrey, and Chicago lawyers Paul Weiss, PhillipBock and Robert Hatch as plaintiff counsel.

INFOSONICS CORP: Settlement of Securities Suit Under Submission---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,on Oct. 30, 2008, took under submission the request for an orderpreliminarily approving a settlement in the consolidated classaction lawsuit "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation,Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14,2007, asserting claims for violation of section 10(b) of theExchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A inconnection with the company's restatement announced June 12,2006, and allegedly false and misleading statements andaccounting related to the company's distribution agreement withVK Corp.

The suit seeks a declaration that it is a proper class actionpursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as unspecifieddamages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys'fees, expert witness fees, other costs, and other unspecifiedrelief.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of thecompany's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006, to Aug. 9, 2006.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss thesecond amended consolidated complaint. In April 2008, the Courtissued an order granting in part and denying in part thedefendants' dismissal motion.

In June 2008, the Court dismissed without prejudice theplaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' restatement of firstquarter 2006 earnings and dismissed without prejudice all claimsagainst a certain individual defendant (Class Action Reporter,June 27, 2008).

On Aug. 8, 2008, prior to defendants filing a motion to dismissor other responsive pleading to the third amended consolidatedcomplaint, the parties entered into a Memorandum ofUnderstanding to resolve the case.

On Oct. 17, 2008, the parties entered a Stipulation andAgreement of Settlement (the Securities Settlement) of the case,which provides the securities class action settlement iscontingent on preliminary and final Court approval (afterappropriate notice), as well as settlement of the derivativeaction against the company, among other contingencies, andprovides for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice ofthe lawsuit, releases of the defendants, and a payment by theCompany or its insurer of $3.8 million to plaintiffs (inclusiveof any plaintiffs' attorneys fees, to be determined by theCourt). It is anticipated that the settlement payment will befunded entirely by the Company's insurer.

The Securities Settlement further provides that defendants denyany liability or responsibility for the claims made and make noadmission of any wrongdoing.

On Oct. 30, 2008, the Court took under submission without oralargument the request for an order preliminarily approving theSecurities Settlement, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2008Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, LeadCase No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of California, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz,presiding.

The lawsuits allege that the hotels kept preset service chargesfrom banquet bills, or used the revenue to pay managers or othernon-tipped employees who didn't serve food and beverages.

The five hotels are the Fairmont Kea Lani Hotel & Resort, theGrand Wailea Resort Hotel & Spa, The Ritz-Carlton in Kapalua,the Wailea Marriott Resort, and the Four Seasons Resort,according to the Associated Press.

On Aug. 22, 2008, Jong Han filed a Complaint against the companysimilar to the purported class action suit filed on behalf ofseveral of Melt, Inc.'s franchisees that was dismissed by theCalifornia court.

According to the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended Sept. 30, 2008, Han seeks damages in an unspecified amountand injunctive relief under state franchise acts, restitutionand injunctive relief under the unfair business practices act,damages and relief under the Cartwright Act, fraud, interferencewith prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment, anddeclaratory relief.

In October 2008, the company filed a Motion to CompelArbitration.

Headquartered in Temecula, Calif., Melt Inc. operates as aholding company for its operating subsidiaries. Its whollyowned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and MeltFranchising LLC. Melt (FA) is responsible for selling franchisesto allow franchisee's to own and operate stores trading underthe name of Melt – gelato italiano, Melt – café & gelato bar andMelt – gelato & crepe café as well as the sale and distributionof product to franchisees, marketing and the collection ofroyalties.

On Aug. 22, 2008, Kang Won Lee and Lee Enterprises filed aComplaint against the company similar to the purported classaction suit filed on behalf of several of Melt, Inc.'sfranchisees that was dismissed by the California court.

Lee seeks damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive reliefunder state franchise acts, restitution and injunctive reliefunder the unfair business practices act, damages and reliefunder the Cartwright Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, anddeclaratory relief, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2008Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In October 2008, the Company filed a Motion to CompelArbitration.

Headquartered in Temecula, Calif., Melt Inc. operates as aholding company for its operating subsidiaries. Its whollyowned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and MeltFranchising LLC. Melt (FA) is responsible for selling franchisesto allow franchisee's to own and operate stores trading underthe name of Melt – gelato italiano, Melt – café & gelato bar andMelt – gelato & crepe café as well as the sale and distributionof product to franchisees, marketing and the collection ofroyalties.

MELT INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Junked California Franchisees' Suit---------------------------------------------------------------An appeal by the plaintiffs in a dismissed purported class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of several of Melt, Inc.'sfranchisees is pending in California.

On Sept. 19, 2007, a punitive class-action lawsuit was filedagainst the company, its affiliates, and its officers andemployees alleging damages and injunctive relief under stateFranchise Acts, restitution and injunctive relief under unfairbusiness practices act, damages and injunctive relief under the"Cartwright" act, fraud, interference with prospective economicadvantage, and declaratory relief.

As of June 30, 2008, the court tentatively dismissed five of thesix allegations contained in the complaint. The plaintiffsthereafter made an application to dismiss the action in itsentirety. The company has filed a motion for attorneys' fees andcosts.

On June 30, 2008, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit.

On Aug. 26, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, accordingto the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.30, 2008.

Headquartered in Temecula, Calif., Melt Inc. operates as aholding company for its operating subsidiaries. Its whollyowned subsidiaries are Melt (California), Inc. and MeltFranchising LLC. Melt (FA) is responsible for selling franchisesto allow franchisee's to own and operate stores trading underthe name of Melt – gelato italiano, Melt – café & gelato bar andMelt – gelato & crepe café as well as the sale and distributionof product to franchisees, marketing and the collection ofroyalties.

The Settlement Agreement had been orally approved by theU.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 14,2008 and the final order was signed and filed on November 17,2008.

The Settlement Agreement, the terms of which have beenpreviously disclosed, resolves more than 100 class actionlawsuits filed in U.S. and Canadian courts relating to therecall of pet food and is binding on all members of theSettlement Class, except for those individuals who have validlyopted out of the settlement.

The Settlement Agreement creates a Settlement Fund of$24 million that will allow a potential recovery of up to 100%of all economic damages incurred by pet owners, subject tocertain limitations. The Settlement Fund, administered by aneutral claims administrator, will be available to persons inthe United States and Canada who purchased or obtained, or whosepets used or consumed, recalled pet food (Class Action Reporter,Oct. 16, 2008).

THE RESERVE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit From Yield Plus Fund Investors--------------------------------------------------------------The Reserve and TD Ameritrade face a purported class-action suitin New York for allegedly misleading investors who lost money inthe Yield Plus fund, United Press International reports.

Federal authorities stepped in to prop up The Reserve's PrimaryFund after its shares fell below $1 and its investment in LehmanBrothers Holding Inc. was erased by Lehman Brothers declaringbankruptcy in September 2008, according to the United PressInternational report.

The temporary federal insurance program did not cover YieldPlus, USA Today reported.

According to Nov. 27, 2008 edition of the Class Action Reporter,on Nov. 25, 2008, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP("Coughlin Stoia") today announced that a class action has beencommenced in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York on behalf of purchasers or entities whopurchased or held the shares of certain mutual funds offered bythe Reserve Short-Term Investment Trust, including the ReserveYield Plus Fund ("Reserve Yield Plus Fund" or the "Fund") duringthe period from July 27, 2007 to September 16, 2008 (the "ClassPeriod"), including purchasers and holders of the Reserve YieldPlus Fund in connection with the July 27, 2007 offering.

The complaint charges the Reserve Short-Term Investment Trust,its parent and affiliates, certain of its officers and trusteesand TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. with violations of theSecurities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthe Investment Company Act of 1940. The Reserve Short-TermInvestment Trust is an open-end, diversified managementinvestment company.

On July 27, 2007, the Reserve Short-Term Trust filed with theSEC a Registration Statement on Form N-1A, a Prospectus andStatement of Additional Information (collectively the"Prospectus").

The Prospectus emphasized the Fund's focus was to "seek as higha level of current income as is consistent with the preservationof capital and liquidity" and a "stable $1.00 share price."

The Fund later issued reports characterizing the Fund as beingan "enhanced cash fund[]" and emphasizing the Fund's focus on"safety of principal, liquidity and soundness of sleep."

The complaint alleges that many of the Fund's purchasers weresold their interests in the Fund by TD Ameritrade and itsemployees who consistently represented to investors that theFund was just like a money market fund. Due to defendants'positive, but false, statements, investors purchased and/orcontinued to hold shares in the Fund.

On September 16, 2008, The Reserve Fund, an entity related tothe Reserve Short-Term Trust, issued a release concerning thePrimary Fund, one of its money market funds, stating that thevalue of the debt securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings,Inc. (face value $785 million) and held by the Primary Fund hadbeen valued at zero and, as a result, the net asset value("NAV") of the Primary Fund was $0.97 per share.

This was major news, as this was only the second time in historythat a money market fund had "broken the buck" – that is,reported a share's value was less than a dollar.

In addition, on September 16, 2008, the NAV of the Reserve YieldPlus Fund also collapsed from $1.00 per share to close at $0.97due to its investment in debt securities issued by Lehman.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were omittedfrom the Prospectus and other statements made by defendantsduring the Class Period, were as follows:

-- the Fund was no longer adhering to the stated objectives of preserving capital, but in an effort to achieve greater yields was pursuing riskier instruments;

-- despite the fact that many observers believed Lehman would be the next Wall Street failure after Bear Stearns collapsed in March 2008, the Fund purchased a large amount of Lehman commercial paper in April 2008;

-- the Fund was not designed to protect the $1.00 NAV, as were traditional money market funds, and was thus significantly riskier than money market funds;

-- the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to prevent defendants from taking on excessive risk; and

-- the Fund failed to disclose the extent of its relationship with TD Ameritrade.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of allpurchasers or holders of certain mutual funds offered by theReserve Short-Term Investment Trust during the Class Period (the"Class").

TRI-S SECURITY: In Talks to Settle Unschuld Suit Over IPO in Ga.----------------------------------------------------------------Tri-S Security Corp. is engaged in settlement discussions withthe parties to a purported class action lawsuit before the StateCourt of Fulton County, State of Georgia, in connection with itsinitial public offering.

On Nov. 1, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filedagainst Tri-S Security, its chief executive officer, its formerchief financial officer, and the lead underwriters in Tri-SSecurity's initial public offering, alleging, among otherthings, violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of theSecurities Act.

The suit is entitled, "Unschuld v. Tri-S Security Corp., etal.," and specifically alleges that the registration statementrelating to the company's IPO was materially inaccurate andmisleading because it failed to disclose certain problems withthe operations and financial condition of Paragon Systems ofwhich the complaint alleges the company was aware.

The suit seeks class certification, unspecified compensatorydamages or rescission, as appropriate, and costs anddisbursements relating to the lawsuit, including reasonableattorneys' fees.

On Dec. 1, 2006, Tri-S Security removed the lawsuit to the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiff moved to remand the case back to the state court,which motion was granted on Sept. 14, 2007.

Tri-S and the other defendants each filed answers in response tothe Complaint on Aug. 13, 2008. On that same date, they alsofiled a joint motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motionfor judgment on the pleadings and a motion for a stay ofdiscovery pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss.Plaintiff opposed the Motion for Stay on Oct. 8, 2008 and theMotion to Dismiss on Oct. 16, 2008.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the parties filed a joint motion requestingthat the court stay all proceedings in the action for 45 days,until Dec. 8, 2008 to facilitate the parties' settlementdiscussions and to avoid the need to incur additional attorneys'fees and other expenses, according to the company's Nov. 14 2008Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Tri-S Security Corp. -- http://www.trissecurity.com/-- is an aggregator of guard services, providing equipment and securityservices to various government agencies and private sectorthrough its two direct, wholly owned subsidiaries, ParagonSystems and Cornwall. The Company's services include uniformedguards, electronic monitoring systems, personnel protection,access control, crowd control and the prevention of sabotage,terrorist and criminal activities. In connection with providingthese services, the Company assumes responsibility for a varietyof functions, including recruiting, hiring, training, arming andsupervising guards deployed to the customers.

WSB FINANCIALL: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement-------------------------------------------------------------The settlement agreement entered into by WSB Financial Group,the parent company of Westsound Bank, in the case captioned, "InRE: WSB Financial Group Securities Litigation," remains subjectto the approval of the U.S. District Court for the WesternDistrict of Washington, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2008Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

In October 2007, a purported securities fraud class-action suitwas commenced in the U.S. District Court for the WesternDistrict of Washington against the Company and certain of itsdirectors and current and former officers alleging violations ofSections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeking anunspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief inconnection with the Company's initial public offering.

Since then four additional, similar actions have been filed inthe U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington.

As is typical in these cases, all the actions have beenconsolidated into a single action, "In RE: WSB Financial GroupSecurities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747 RAJ."

On Oct. 14, 2008 the Company reported it has entered into asettlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in the pendingsecurities class action. The class action settlement is subjectto the approval of the U.S. District Court for the WesternDistrict of Washington.

The settlement agreement provides for the certification of aclass consisting of all persons who purchased the Company'scommon stock pursuant or traceable to its initial publicoffering completed on Dec. 21, 2006. The total amount of thesettlement is $4.85 million. The Company's directors' andofficers' liability insurance policy will contributeapproximately $4.45 million towards the settlement amount andhas previously contributed approximately $350,000 towards theCompany's legal fees. The settlement agreement contains noadmission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or the otherdefendants. Third quarter expenses include approximately$800,000 in legal costs associated with the settlement of thesecurities class action lawsuit.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent research,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.